That true enough. No-one is suggesting British forces should go touring around the world picking fights with local tyrants wherever we find them (like the Victorians used to). But just occasionally an opportunity presents itself to take action, and there is a decision to be taken whether to intervene or not. It is always easier, cheaper, and less risky to sit back with our arms folded and do nothing. Intervening inevitably involves risk, effort, expense, and complication; bravery, both political and military, is also required. What if Saddam had been left in place, and was still there now? Would not his regime would have carried on murdering, torturing and raping, stealing everything, attacking his own Iraqi people, and making war on other countries? You seem to have an utopian idea that the deaths which occur daily in Iraq today would not have happened if Saddam were still there - why do you think that? Does that notion have any basis, apart from wishful thinking?
If someone wants to point me at the casualty figures of life under Saddam, vs life in Iraq now and the total casualty cost of the war, I might be persuaded to join your point of view. I have yet to see those figures. You might think it would be a good idea to so and sort out Mugabe as well. Why not?
Every country 'had no experience of democracy', until it was tried out at some point in history. Most countries have needed two or three goes before they could get democracy to work, but each country deserves the chance to have a go and make a start. In my opinion. Every country is a 'made up entity'. At some point in history each nation state has been assembled out of earlier smaller parts, and every nation faces the threat of separatism, disintegration, and collapse. Every country includes various tribes, except the tiniest countries. Even the United Kingdom!
Maybe there is more than one way to skin a cat. Is there a craving for democracy in Russia, or do they just like a "strong man"? Are the Saudis champing at the bit for democracy? Maybe we are just projecting our mindset on other people. Perhaps they don't think as we do (in my experience, people often don't). There is perhaps a difference between not wanting to be ruled by a tyrant, but a happy acceptance of being ruled by a benign dictator. Why are presidents the world over more like kings and less like servants of the people? Why are they revered? There is also an evident difference between countries that more or less encapsulate reasonably coherent populations, and those that are just made up around a conference table with a map, a ruler and a pencil.
Murderous regimes tend not to publish accurate figures of the numbers of their victims, strangely enough. Genocidal killers go to great lengths to conceal and lie about what they are doing. Saddam's regime was notorious for lying continuously about everything. The Islamist killers who still infest Iraq today also keep no records and publish no stats. In the real world, there are no accurate figures to be had, obviously. When you say, "I have yet to see those figures", is that some kind of joke?
I am sure there are estimates, at least of the casualties since the Allied invasion. If the BBC can tell us every now and again (when there is no more interesting news) "A car bomb exploded in Bagdad today, killing 40 and injuring hundreds of others" someone must surely be keeping count. I'll do some Googling. You're not going to get a definitive answer, but there are no doubt estimates. After all, even Stalin's Russia gave rise to estimates. Better than nowt.
A working democracy is messy, complicated and expensive. Its compromises can be frustrating, since nobody gets exactly what they want. Presidents and Prime Ministers have only a limited influence on events. Reaching a decision about complex issues can take ages. Voters often behave irrationally, and it is the business of politicians to take this into account. Elections are times of uncertainty. Friedrich Nietzsche beckons: ever-tempting is the seductive idea of an authoritarian leader who can take all the decisions quickly, and implement them immediately. However many times fascism is extinguished, it is resurrected to threaten freedom anew. There are always some who fail to understand the dangers.
Even our own democracy arrived shakily, with blood and a hint of autocratic stewardship for a while. But we got there in the end. Oddly enough driven by fundamentalist elements of that society. Puritans.
Actually it was England-Denmark, with a smattering of Switzerland-Croatia and France-Holland, all followed by a lengthy Skype.
A quick Google thew up this: It is what it is - no doubt to be taken with a salt cellar, but in the absence of anything better... Also doesn't seem to take much account of casualty figures over the past 5 years or so. Things maybe better now. Who knows? Still, quite a bill: Iraq War Facts, Statistics at January 31, 2012 - Iraq War Casualties, Spending
i don't think the USA would love to see Mexico go communist... Ukraine is Russia's back yard.. so it should come as no surprise that Russia will make sure their assets in the region are safe... there is too much for all to lose to let it get out of hand.. US couldn't care less, Europe is quit impotent and russians are too intertwined with us to really upset everyone by starting a shooting war... Putin can do this unpunished as long as there are no bodybags.. once russians start dying, there is more to lose then to gain..
No country/government/king/pope/[insert what you like] ever cared if the citizens where dying. As long as the ruling part of society is ok, all is ok.
But considering how many Stalin etc have massacred, you could be forgiven for assuming Russia as a state cared even less for their own people than any other state cared for theirs.
There will continue to be conflict between the Global North and the Global South as access to resources becomes more expensive and the wealth gap between the haves and the have-nots reaches a critical point. i.e. where the purchasing power of a single nation can destroy another by buying up so much of it's natural resources that the native inhabitants cannot survive.
